How to deal with the likes of Stalin/Putin

Russia is far more inferior by technological and overall societal standards than most Russians are willing to realize.

The Soviet Union of the late 1930's and early 1940's were ridiculed in combat by "tiny" Finland.

The reasons the brainwashed Soviets managed to invade lunatic Nazi Germany were:

The Soviet Union never has been a well organized part of the World. If it ever had been, East Germany would have been prosperous when it united with West Germany. But it was not.

In 1991, my father got to know a family in former DDR through work. They were well educated but lived in a small, poorly built apartment and didn't even own a car. Ten years after the reunion of Germany, they owned a very nice, well built house and when our family came to visit them, they drove up in front of the railway station, picking us up in brand new Volvos of the kind we drive here in Sweden!

I believe in Capitalism and in Nationalism. I've seen what it could do. I've witnessed what the opposite is unable of doing..

The future of Europe and Russia as well is Christianity and Capitalism, or there will be no future.

I view it this way;

Stalin tried to make Finland a part of the Soviet Union.

He failed.

This equals Finnish success in a struggle between Mannerheim and Stalin.

The Russians backed off and gave up. I interpret this as a decisive Finnish victory.

What do you wish to call it?

Dear WC, I honestly couldn't care less where you think I hail from. If adding some logic into some (not all, just some) of your threads makes me Russian or Klingon or the Lobster Man from Mars simply raises queries on YOUR ability to be lucid.

Some of the threads you have brought up in the past have been absolutely ludicrous (one can search for the one where you said a single Gotland submarine can take out the city of St Petersburg; or the classic thread that made many laugh where you raised a scenario asking what would happen if Moscow nuked London, Paris and STOCKHOLM!!!! I was not the only one questioning your sanity on that thread).

Ok, so a Gotland DE submarine has torpedos (totally useless against buildings) and, optionally, naval mines (also useless against buildings) and Conventional cruise missiles (which can damage a couple of buildings). Russia has a number of SSBNs (each armed with a dozen or more nuclear SLBMs that can take out multiple cities half a world away), SSGNs (armed with nuclear tipped Granit cruise missiles with a range of 3,000kms), and SSNs (that can pack shorter ranged cruise missiles). Any ONE of the SSGNs (for instance) is able to absolutely devastate Sweden. Any one of the SSBNs and they wouldn't have to use more than one SLBM if they opt for one that has MIRVs. Sweden has a history of facing up to stronger countries and winning, andas I said you have an amazing history and are a proud people. However, the moment the Soviets went nuclear decades ago the only hope of the Swedes against them was NATO, and specifically the United States of America. The current Russia, in a real war not some silly skirmish like the Georgia debacle, can do more against Stockholm with one submarine than Sweden can against St Petersburg with a Gotland. That is common sense. If that makes me a motley-speckled nightingale then so be it. It doesn't change the fact though that Sweden versus Russia in a fullscale war is as silly as Uganda versus the US.

As for what can be done against Putin - I have faith that the rise of freedom loving Russians and the rise of the church will have a mark (and already is). Furthermore their demographics are not exactly promising, and if they don't watch out they will have the Chinese as a far greater threat than Sweden ever could be ...and anyways Sweden is facing it's own demographic threat, this time with a Muslim tint).

I interpret this as a decisive Finnish victory.

Like I said, a victory in which you give up 15% of your territory, including your second-largest city, 30% of your industrial capacity, a third of your hydroelectric capacity, 75 locomotives, 2000 rails cars, render over 100,000 refugees from the lands handed over as refugees and are forced to lease other bases to your enemy seems an odd kind of "decisive victory."

What do you wish to call it?

A negotiated surrender with something better than unconditional terms.

The fact is that after their initial humiliations, the Soviets reorganized and reinforced their forces. They began punching holes in the Mannerheim line. The Finns, running out of men and ammunition, saw the writing on the wall and asked for terms. And while the Soviets made noise about conquering all of Finland, what they settled for was more than what they'd been demanding during the October, 1939 negotiations, terms the Finns rejected at that time. So if you want spin that conceding to terms more harsh than those you'd rejected four months earlier constitutes a decisive victory, be my guest.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.